Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Chance of El Niño drops to 50%

Despite the tropical Pacific Ocean being primed for an El Niño during much of the first half of 2014, the atmosphere above has largely failed to respond, and hence the ocean and atmosphere have not reinforced each other. As a result, some cooling has now taken place in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, with most of the key NINO regions returning to neutral values.

While the chance of an El Niño in 2014 has clearly eased, warmer-than-average waters persist in parts of the tropical Pacific, and the (slight) majority of climate models suggest El Niño remains likely for spring. Hence the establishment of El Niño before year's end cannot be ruled out. If an El Niño were to occur, it is increasingly unlikely to be a strong event.

Given the current observations and the climate model outlooks, the Bureau’s ENSO Tracker has shifted to El Niño WATCH status. This means the chance of El Niño developing in 2014 is approximately 50%, which remains significant at double the normal likelihood of an event.

I warned people who were crowing about a huge El Niño that was going to send global temps skyrocketing, that if it didn't come through deniers would be quoting them for years to come. already seen a little of that

tony : I've said much the same but not about the El Nino, about the surface temperature this year and next. If we don't get record temperatures this year or next then AGW deniers will be crowing. However if we get a record without an El Nino to point at they will be in a bit of a twirl, I reckon.

Oddly enough I first heard of the PDO when deniers were blaming the 90's warming on the +ve PDO and predicting cooling when the -ve phase came along. Instead they've had to settle for the mythical Pause and no mention of the PDO. If we return to the +ve phase they'll be all over it again, of course.

From 2005 claims started coming out that a long-term cooling phase had settled. This, I think, derives from a confusion between a cool phase and a cooling phase. Once the cool (or warm) phase has settled in that's as cool (or warm) as it gets. They assumed it would just keep getting colder.

Echoing some of the above; no, this really isn't a problem. Deniers can crow about getting El Nino predictions wrong, maybe - really, who cares? - but record warmth in neutral conditions is not a story they need to be drawing attention to.

I've often wondered if warming might induce a shift to more prevalent La Ninas, as some sources suggest happened during the MWP, hence the disasters at the time for the US south-west that we're seeing something of a replay of. At any rate, on top of record temps in neutral conditions there will eventually be more El Ninos, large and small, and there's virtually no chance that will bring any good news for the Denial camp...

Not sure where the idea that "deniers" including Watts are predicting imminent cooling comes from. There are a few outliers that actually do think that there will be imminent cooling and also, those that believe that the increase in CO2 is not heating up the planet but they are isolated and for the most part shunned.

The majority of "deniers" deny catastrophic warming and global climate models skill level, since they have been too warm during the last 15 years.

The vast majority of "deniers" believe that increasing CO2 is warming up the planet at a much slower(and less dangerous) rate than climate models predict. The slowdown in warming that has resulted in it taking all this time to finally eeek out a new global temperature record is exactly what most deniers believe should be happening.

So be careful on calling this not "good news", for the Denial camp.

If we resumed a warming rate similar to the 1980's/90's and smashed global temperature records by a wide margin, as global climate models have been predicting for 2 decades, that would be bad news for the "deniers" and the planet.

There's a long term experiment at WUWT, numerobis. Based on data so far, evidence suggests that the "vast majority" or "all" deniers believe that the vast majority or all deniers think they same as them and that "virtually no" deniers think any differently - usually along the lines that "all "skeptics" accept the world is warming" or "all "skeptics" accept some warming" or I don't know of any "skeptic" who doesn't accept some human influence" or alternatively "everyone knows" or "it's obvious" or "it's been proved that" [it's not happening/the pause/it's cooling] etc. This is despite the fact that in a single thread at WUWT you can read:

There is definitely a fringe element to those dubbed as "deniers". This makes it easy to assume this fringe is part of the legit position which denies catastrophic global warming based on climate models which represent the theorized physics of the atmosphere.

Dr. Roy Spencer has stated his frustration with this being the case. "Denier" which he has been called repeatedly(and despises), has been lumped into a category that includes all sorts of absurd, fringe, anti science positions.

This post of his makes the acceptable position clear:http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

I would be happy to ask Mr. Watts what his actual position is, rather than it being speculated here and assumed that he agrees with all posts at his site that clearly attracts nothing but "deniers" of every type.

I'll add that in addition to the "vast majority" or "all" deniers believing that the "vast majority" or "all" deniers think the same as them, the "vast majority" or "all" deniers think that their various anti-science/pseudo-science crankery is "legit".

Did I leave "models" out of my list of denier contradictions, and CAGW?

"I would be happy to ask Mr. Watts what his actual position is, rather than it being speculated here and assumed that he agrees with all posts at his site that clearly attracts nothing but "deniers" of every type."

OK, go and ask him. It will be amusing to see how he denies that he spent an entire article talking about cooling trends, and finished it with a "hand-drawn sine curve" that would predict cooling ahead.

Meteormike:Can you explain why any reasonable person would have any respect for a web site where Christopher Monckton is lauded? Do you find him a reasonable representative for those who try to put the case that increasing CO2 levels are not a problem?On your point about the use of the word denier, to me that means one who denies the scientific consensus. Perhaps you could suggest a better term for them. I refuse to call them skeptics because they consistently show that they aren't skeptical at all.JG

I agree that Monckton gets way over the top sometimes. I can see how, like Rush Limbaugh or Fox News he would cause more polarization vs bringing opposing views together. We are gaining insight into what makes the climate tick. Greater understanding should result in merging views towards the truth, not polarization.

Climate science has become more of an effort to defend ones current view and vilify the ones that don't agree more than it is a truth seeking mission.

I will ask Anthony Watts what his position is and also, if it includes the belief that we are headed towards imminent cooling.

BTW, you can call me a troll if you want, it doesn't matter. Just know that I've been an operational meteorologist for 32 years.

"Greater understanding should result in merging views towards the truth, not polarization"

Yes it should. WUWT isn't in that business. It's main purpose is FUD. Just like the disinformation efforts of anti-science lobbyists like Marc Morano, Fred Singer, Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, John Christy; and the clownish bluster of Christopher Monckton and the paranoid conspiracy theories of Tim Ball.

"...and vilify the ones that don't agree" that's one of the tactics of WUWT in its disinformation campaign. Ad hom used to be served much more often at WUWT, before a couple of the vilified scientists started biting back.

"I've been an operational meteorologist for 32 years" - let me guess - reading weather maps in the USA instead of climate science, going by your use of denier jargon.

I'm not talking about being over the top or polarization, I'm talking about whether he and for that matter many other of Watts contributors, can be relied on to tell the truth. How many times have they been caught out pedalling misinformation. How many times has he claimed in his lectures that scientists have said one thing and when contacted they have said that he has misrepresented their research? Why would anyone have any respect for a website where he is one of the main contributors?More information here: http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

> Message: Hi Anthony,> I've been having a discussion at HotWhopper that involves the views of> "deniers" and your name came up(imagine that).>> I know that you're busy but wonder if you could just provide me with a> brief summary of your view on climate change and also, if you that includes> a belief that we are in for imminent cooling.>> I provided Dr. Spencer's view earlier(from an article he wrote). I'm not> trying to start a fight but trying to show, what I believe is the view of> those who represent the core group of individuals that are trying to follow> legit science and are being called deniers.>> My personal view is that denier is ok as long as it refers to denying> catastrophic warming and global climate model skill.>> Please, if you will just provide your personal view, on climate change so> that I can pass it along and end any speculation regarding this.> TIAHere is his response:

> Warming has occurred, and CO2 has some effect, but the effect is near> saturation and temperature rise so far is within limits of natural> variation. UHI and land use change still has not been properly dealt with in> the surface record, giving it a positive bias.>> Models are over-predicting, partly because the surface temperature record is> over adjusted and not properly dealing with.>> Catastrophic AGW viewpoints are mostly due to increased coverage, not an> actual increase in events. See here:> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/19/why-it-seems-that-severe-weather-is-getting-worse-when-the-data-shows-otherwise-a-historical-perspective/>> Even the IPCC sees no link to severe weather in IPCC SREX.>> My views are summed up well here:> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_-A-uDu2fQ>> Anthony

"So that we can distinguish between discussions about "AGW" vs "CAGW", what do you think are:

a) likely value (or range) of CO2 in 2100?

b) equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 (deg.C/doubling)?

And why?"

On CO2 being "near saturation" I believe with moderate confidence that the effects on warming, being logarithmic are becoming less and less as we add more and more CO2. Going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has warmed our atmosphere as much as going from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will.

Of the 1 C of warming the past 150 years, we can guess that maybe half of that was from "greenhouse gas" warming or .5 C.That would mean that going from 400 ppm to 800 ppm would mean another .5 C from CO2 alone.

But let's see why climate models have been so wrong and shown no skill based on my real world of weather observations.They are programmed with the mathematical equations to represent the physics of the atmosphere that the model builder/climate scientist(who is probably much smarter than me with his math and physics but is way short on observations) believes in. This is only a theory and real world use of this output shows its a bad theory.........but why?

Mainly because the role of water vapor is not handled correctly by the models. All of them get their "catastrophic" warming using H2O as an amplifier. We know that H2O is the main greenhouse gas, accounting for 95% of the greenhouse gas effect, so why isn't this working in the real world atmosphere?1. Increasing CO2 is causing a booming biosphere, increasing vegetative health and plant growth. The is increasing evapotranspiration that models don't have(and theoretically, could cause even more positive feedback from H2O) which is causing a net cooling effect that is the opposite of what models are programmed with.Not only does increased vegetation modify temperature increase but the increased evapotranspiration as well as increasing H2O from the warmer oceans and other sources are causing changes in clouds that models have all wrong.Instead of warming, the net effects from cloud changes have been negative. Cloud height has DECREASED over the last decade. Clouds from lower heights radiate heat to space more effectively(from a warmer part of the atmosphere) and will cool the planet vs high clouds that generally trap more heat. Additionally, the only extreme weather element that has increased the past 3 decades has been heavy rain events and flooding. Drought area has decreased slightly. Wetter soils, with more vegetation have a net cooling effect that is the opposite sign of the climate models.

Regarding my likely range of CO2 in 2100. I understand why people are conditioned to thinking predicting values almost a century from now somehow provides useful guidance. We got the last 15 years wrong on global temps and if you understood the reasons that the global climate models are so far off right now, then you would understand why it's absurd to go out 100 years with them.

Regarding CO2. I forecast crop yields and know plants. We all learned about photosynthesis in elementary school:Sunshine +H2O +CO2 = Food(sugars) +O2Add some minerals from the soil and you have what all animals eat(or something that ate plants) and breathe.

This is an indisputable law. My estimate is that,world food production is 15% higher because of the increase in CO2. This of course depends on whether the crop carries out C3 or C4 photosynthesis. Woody stemmed plants have had increases much greater than that.

These increases would continue to well over 800 ppm atmospheric CO2 as shown by thousands of greenhouses using levels even higher than that.

I have tried to stick with areas of my expertise involving real world observations/empirical data vs theories. We are living in a world where the theories have become the assumptions and those assumptions are trumping all the real world observations that I know to be what is actually happening.With high latitude warming, comes a decrease in the meridional temp gradient and less energy for storms.Strong to violent tornadoes peaked during modest global cooling of the 1970's. Global tropical cyclone energy peaked in the mid 1990's. The worst droughts were in the 1930's, with global areas in drought down slightly in the last 3 decades.Extreme rain events and flooding has INCREASED. This one is without a doubt true. A warmer atmosphere with more moisture makes this inevitable. Wildfire numbers are not up but acreage and damage is up..........because the increasing CO2 has caused so much vegetative growth that becomes fuel for them to burn out of control.

"On CO2 being "near saturation" I believe with moderate confidence that the effects on warming, being logarithmic are becoming less and less as we add more and more CO2. Going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has warmed our atmosphere as much as going from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will."

Well, no, logarithmic says that 400 to 800 ppm will be the same as 280 to 560 ppm, i.e., doubling always has the same effect. 280-to-400 ppm is a ~40% increase.

"... we can guess that maybe half of that was from "greenhouse gas" warming or .5 C." Why? What's the basis for your guess? There's a lot of hand-waving for a sciency guy.

But, let's say 40% increase in CO2 gives 0.5-1 C. What do you get for ECS? Then it becomes important: what is a reasonable expectation for CO2 concentrations in 2100, assuming policy is set by listening to bloggers who post guesses of "imminent cooling" ?

Nice try but only for a short while. First, working for a private forecasting firm, then as chief meteorologist for a Midwest TV station, then, the past 22 years, forecasting GLOBAL crop yields/conditions and energy using global weather patterns and the influence they have on prices of commodities.

The weather in the US is key at many times of the year for many commodities but in the middle of the night, while most people are sleeping, I'm looking at the latest updates of weather models for both hemispheres.

Have been making a living positioning my money on understanding this. I work for myself.

I realize that there is a difference is between weather models and climate models. I built a few simple weather models in the early 1980's. I also understand climate models.

I have global weather records going back a century. As you must know, climate is just the average of weather over a long period of time......that includes variations and extremes.

As an atmospheric scientist, I have studied climate science for almost 15 years now. Did you know that while acquiring my degree at the University of Michigan, I took the same classes as those who went on to become climate scientists?

Roy Spencer graduated 3 years before me and I was in many of the same classes with Jeff Masters, who you may consider very qualified because of his position on climate change.

"I'm sorry, am I allowed to contradict an operation meteorologist with 32 years experience?"

Hugh, what does this have to do with my meteorological expertise?

I can see that you are drawing conclusion based on a speculative post made by Watts that does not define his views.This is why I eliminated speculation and gossip by contacting him myself to get his actual belief.

As you can see/read, I tend to spend alot of time answering questions or responding in an attempt to try to be complete and honest.

I only have so much time each day but would invite you all to join the MarketForum which is a place I post my thoughts on weather, markets, crops and often climate change. Feel free to join us there, read my posts, or go back to read my hundreds of posts to find something I said wrong(:

http://www.marketforum.com/?id=1257185

I post at random, when I feel like it/have the time but try to respond to all questions.I appreciate SOU allowing me to be a part of this forum on this particular topic...........sort of funny as I was originally looking for ENSO data regarding the potential El Nino when I stumbled in here.Mike

Anthony's comment that "the [CO2] effect is near saturation" points to something that I've long suspected. Yes, he accepts that the greenhouse effect exists. But most likely he accepts it because someone he trusts (Pielke? Spencer?) has told him so, not out of any real understanding of the underlying physics.

For those who care about this sort of thing, Ray Pierrehumbert's discussion is quite good (if a bit over lengthy):

In amongst all his other pseudo-science, Anthony often posts guest articles from other people who make predictions of an imminent plunge in surface temperature - so that people will take them seriously.

Anthony Watt's "beliefs" about climate science are as variable as Melbourne weather and the articles on his blog.

Meteormike, after reading your attempts at climate science, I suggest you stick to weather.

I respect Jeff Masters' because his weather articles are extremely well written in a way that the general public can understand the weather, and because they are consistent with science.

When you write about weather do you toss in your denialist beliefs about climate or do you just stick to weather?

"As an atmospheric scientist, I have studied climate science for almost 15 years now. "

So you knowingly reject climate science and favour denier memes.

Then you contradict yourself, writing:

"We got the last 15 years wrong on global temps and if you understood the reasons that the global climate models are so far off right now, then you would understand why it's absurd to go out 100 years with them."

followed by this...

" I also understand climate models. "

Both statements are wrong. The first is wrong because climate models are designed for long term projections not short term natural variability. The second is wrong because you don't understand that.

BTW - appeals to authority don't work when you reject what the authority says. It's no different to claiming that because Anthony Watts spent several years at Purdue he must be the only person who is right and all the experts at Purdue must be wrong.

Meteormike got some things right, but there's lots of very basic stuff that he got wrong, for all his fifteen years of study. For example, he wrote:

"Going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has warmed our atmosphere as much as going from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will."

As PL pointed out, that's wrong. In the current range of CO2, going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm (not 400 ppm) will warm the atmosphere as much as going from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will.

He got this bit wrong too, writing:

"We know that H2O is the main greenhouse gas, accounting for 95% of the greenhouse gas effect, so why isn't this working in the real world atmosphere?"

That's very wrong. Water vapour accounts for around 50% of the greenhouse effect, not 95%. CO2 accounts for around 20% and clouds around 25%. Even when you remove the effect of clouds, water vapour accounts for 67% of the greenhouse effect and CO2 24%.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf

This is the greenhouse effect, not the contribution to global warming. For global warming, the main cause is the *increase* in atmospheric CO2, which causes feedbacks.

A hotter world means that when droughts occur they are worse and there are more days of catastrophic fire danger. Heat waves are worse. In fact there is a lot of climate change already happening. And Meteormike wants to try to tell us not to worry because he doesn't like the denier word "catastrophic" and because "CO2 is plant food" and anyway, "the pause".

I guess this makes it clear; Meteormike is a denier.......of global climate model skill and their forecasts for catastrophic warming (:

Here is the biggest clue to why global climate models are almost all too warm and part of what needs fixing badly.

They are all wrong about clouds, especially the way increasing water vapor is effecting clouds.Though H2O is a greenhouse gas, when you increase water vapor in the lower levels, as has been the case, it lowers the lifting condensation level. More low level clouds develop and convective clouds develop earlier in the day. Not only does this reflect back more short wave/solar radiation but lower clouds are more effective long wave radiators since they radiate from an area with a higher temperature and thus tend to cool the earth vs high clouds that tend to warm the earth.

This produces a negative feedback from increasing water vapor.

In addition, there has been a tremendous increase in vegetation across the planet in response to the fertilization effect from increasing CO2. This has significantly increased the amount of evapotranspiration(or just plant transpiration if you want).

This factor is underestimated in climate models. It's causing an increase in the greenhouse gas, H2O in the atmosphere but is enhancing the effect described above which is producing a negative feedback, because of the powerful changes in low clouds, not the positive feedback/warming amplifier as global climate models are programmed with."Fact: 10 percent of the moisture found in the atmosphere is released by plants through transpiration" http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html

The Midwest Cornbelt during the growing season has been like an outdoor laboratory to study this effect over the past 3 decades. Every year, a "micro climate" develops as tightly packed rows of corn(double the density of 30 years ago) result in massive, easily observed contributions to low level moisture from (evapo)transpiration. Dew points are often 5 degrees higher from just this factor.http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/evapotranspiration-corn-belt-humidity_2011-07-13

As the vegetation explosion continues on a global scale, though not with the same magnitude as in the Cornbelt, this same effect is occurring globally.

Global climate models are clueless about this and it's effect on low clouds. Many climate scientists have spent years speculating about new theories to explain why their old theory using global climate models is still correct.They will never find the answer or the truth that way.

It's right there under their noses as seen from observations of clouds in the real world. Amazing that these brilliant scientists would overlook something this not as brilliant meteorologist has observed clearly for years.

A powerful part of the human psyche that controls most of us(including brilliant scientists) is our many cognitive bias's.Look at this list and see how many you can relate to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases\

Here is a related article on clouds and global climate models:http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-046

@MM: As a scientist, the next step after having your initial claims disputed is to defend them or agree that you got them wrong, not to go off on a Gish Gallop of other stuff. I suggest you start with clear answers to my previous very simple points:

a) since you now know that 280=>400 is 40%, not 100%, what does that tell you about ECS and whether 400=>800 ppm is a problem?

2) what will CO2 concentration likely be in 2100?

3) What is the basis for your self-admitted "guess" that 0.5 deg.C of warming since 1900 is man-made?

4) Using your ability to talk with Watts, ask him directly about whether he agrees with the predictions on his blog of imminent global cooling.

Wow, you guys think that all we need to do is have the right math and physics and we can predict the atmosphere for the next 100 years.

You really don't understand the atmosphere at all. Your impressive math display is great in a hypothetical/theoretical world. My guesses(and they are just educated guesses) are based on my knowledge of those physics but in addition, I give the greatest weight to observations of the atmosphere compared to those physical laws.

When the observations contradict the physics(of climate models), then its not the observations that are wrong.

I find it absurd, after decades of observing the global atmosphere, that people still think they can model it and predict it with skill for the next 100 years.

My previous post shows how the models are completely messed up with regards to clouds. Do you think that clouds might be an important part of climate? How can anybody with an understanding of cloud physics and, most importantly in tune with observations of changes and realities of global clouds actually think that global models are accurately representing clouds? And to the year 2100, when they got it mostly wrong in just the last decade?

Your questions show that you don't understand what the problem is. My previous post states a big and irrefutable portion of the cloud issue that you should be able to understand.

You show me a global climate model that can predict clouds with some skill(observed, not theorized) and we can have a discussion rooted in reality.

I'll add to the challenges from PL and BBD, which so far Meteormike has ignored. Meteormike, since he claims an understanding of climate, might explain why he got it so very wrong when he claimed that water vapour is 95% of the greenhouse effect when in all sky conditions it's only 50%.

And Meteormike might tell us why he rejected the two articles that Marco referenced, when Meteormike first put forward his "it's clouds"/"CO2 is plant food" argument.

And after he's answered PL's and BBD's and my questions, then he can move back to his "but CO2 is plant food" / "it's clouds" argument. On that one he might explain why he is so convinced that evapotranspiration, which he says contributes only 10% of water vapour, would have such a vast impact on global low level clouds all of a sudden. Why didn't they have the same impact in the decades beforehand?

Meanwhile, here's an interesting article on clouds and climate, referring to people who are more likely to know what they are talking about than a midwest cornbelt weather watcher. The scientists who research this stuff have moved onto "known unknowns". Meteormike might think he's solved all the problems of climate science. Meanwhile, climate scientists are doing climate science.

Here's a more recent paper (2014). It discusses cloud top height being coupled with ENSO, trends in other parts of the world, as well as possible changes in different levels of the troposphere. It is a detailed study, not nearly as certain as Meteormike is about it all. I don't think it mentioned the fact that "CO2 is plant food" :D.

Oh, and other readers, rather than take in Meteormike's version of climate models - which is wrong in multiple ways, I recommend the article by Scott K. Johnson at Ars Technica, and Isaac Held's blog. (Isaac's latest couple of articles are about water vapour over the oceans.) Also realclimate.org's FAQ on climate models. It's a few years old but provides a good introduction.

When the observations contradict the physics(of climate models), then its not the observations that are wrong.

Observations do not contradict the physics of climate models. This is a blatantly counterfactual claim.

When the CMIP5 models are forced with updated forcings (ENSO; solar; volcanic aerosols) they come into close agreement with observations for the last decade. The models actually work very well. Sou wrote about Schmidt et al. (2014) here. Have a look.

If you don't wish to actually interact with other posters, e.g., answer their questions and admit mistakes, then it seems you're just using Sou's blog to post your own opinion pieces. Create your own blog. Don't waste everyone's time here.

All the information in your long sciency posts, that you think refute the idea of significant AGW requiring management, will be ignored until you turn it into a peer-reviewed paper. Put your posting time into that instead.

I once mentioned a survey that was done last year about how a surprisingly large number of US-based meteorologists (not climate science researchers) are woefully ignorant about climate science. They might be good at weather forecasting but they are hopeless when it comes to climate change.

"US-based meteorologists (not climate science researchers) are woefully ignorant about climate science. They might be good at weather forecasting but they are hopeless when it comes to climate change"

Or......... they actually specialize in using observations of the real atmosphere, not limiting their understanding to equations fed to a computer that some absurdly think can forecast the climate for 100 years.

Interesting that so many meteorologists, who take most of the same classes as climate scientists would have such a different view than climate scientists.

One group needs to be accountable and learn to reconcile differences with model output and observations of the atmosphere on a regular basis, the other group can use models to represent a theory and go out 100 years and when observations in the real world don't match for over a decade, because of the length of the model projection, can instead, add new theories to justify the old theory(global climate model output) instead of fixing the actual problem.

One would think that we are worlds apart in our views but the one small difference between us is that you believe entirely in global climate models and the amount of warming that they forecast. I used to have that view. but have adjusted my view, to reconcile with realities of my observations of the atmosphere and dialed down my expectations of the skill level of global climate models accordingly.So my belief is that warming will continue to be less than what global climate models suggest.

95% of the ensembles are too warm to much too warm, with the average obviously projecting a rate of warming that is getting farther and farther than observed warming with time.

You are all correct in knowing how to represent the atmosphere with the best physics we have to use in global climate models.

I have applied this same theory and the models and it failed based on my observations over the last several decades. I can show you how and where it is failing(clouds) but can't provide that elusive, perfect set of equations that would fix the ones we have.

It's better to know that you can't be certain about something, than to suffer from the allusion that you know exactly what it is?

"It's better to know that you can't be certain about something, than to suffer from the allusion that you know exactly what it is?"

Can you not see the irony of saying this when you keep saying with apparent certainty that nearly all of the scientific community are wrong and you are right because you have observed something they have all missed? You have talked up your education and credentials, so why don't you just publish a paper showing why all the science is wrong and you will be hailed as a hero. As it is your inability to interact with posters and answer questions (as PL pointed out) doesn't inspire confidence. JG

TH: A lot of these metrics that we develop come from computer models. How should people treat the kind of info that comes from computer climate models?

Hansen: I think you would have to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Because if computer models were in fact the principal basis for our concern, then you have to admit that there are still substantial uncertainties as to whether we have all the physics in there, and how accurate we have it. But, in fact, that's not the principal basis for our concern. It's the Earth's history-how the Earth responded in the past to changes in boundary conditions, such as atmospheric composition. Climate models are helpful in interpreting that data, but they're not the primary source of our understanding.

TH: Do you think that gets misinterpreted in the media?

Hansen: Oh, yeah, that's intentional. The contrarians, the deniers who prefer to continue business as usual, easily recognize that the computer models are our weak point. So they jump all over them and they try to make the people, the public, believe that that's the source of our knowledge. But, in fact, it's supplementary. It's not the basic source of knowledge. We know, for example, from looking at the Earth's history, that the last time the planet was two degrees Celsius warmer, sea level was 25 meters higher.

And we have a lot of different examples in the Earth's history of how climate has changed as the atmospheric composition has changed. So it's misleading to claim that the climate models are the primary basis of understanding.

I can show you how and where it is failing(clouds) but can't provide that elusive, perfect set of equations that would fix the ones we have.

If cloud feedbacks net negative and are strong enough to alter climate system behaviour, then the climate system would be insensitive to radiative perturbation. So how do we account for hyperthermals like the PETM, general paleoclimate and modern climate variability and deglaciation under orbital forcing?

It is extremely obvious to most discussants that the climate system's known behaviour (observed and paleoclimate) is entirely incompatible with the existence of strong negative feedbacks to radiative perturbation.

The reverse applies: it is self-evident that the climate system is moderately sensitive to radiative perturbation.

As I said, it's absurd to give my estimate for things like CO2 and resulting global temperatures a century from now (2100).

If you read my views and my "denying" global climate model skill because they have failed the test of matching up with observations you should understand that to be nothing more than a wild, fruitless guess and a debate about something that is not currently a viable way to accurately project future temperatures with substantive skill.

I have stuck with what I know with absolute certainty based on observations(and that includes 95% of global climate models being too warm/much too warm) and acknowledged that there are other things that I do not pretend to know, even as others think they know it.

"You have talked up your education and credentials, so why don't you just publish a paper showing why all the science is wrong and you will be hailed as a hero"

1. I make a good living in the real world using my area of expertise, which is analyzing and interpreting weather data using models and observations in the real world and making projection of how they effect things like crop yields and energy use.......in the real world2. Those in the climate science community you speak of, are spending much of their time publishing papers with theories to support the explanation for their original theories(based on climate models) to "temporarily" not be working right now. Their global climate models will continue too warm until they make the right changes to reconcile with observations/realities. 3. I understand that you are limited by your willingness to learn new things, basing it on published papers. That's your choice. I have devoted my life to helping young(and old) people learn in my free time. I'm the chess coach at 4 different schools. I am not trying to argue or prove a point or be a hero as you say. My objective is to help people learn by sharing useful, always authentic information that allows them to grow mentally.I am clearly aware that at this site, my attempts to do so are being profoundly rejected and have no hope of getting anywhere.

Just know that there are few people on this planet with more experience analyzing global weather patterns than me and everything that I have stated is based on rock solid science from my observations and only intended to assist those who want to learn more.

Also, to assist you, please review the list below and look in the mirror. If you don't see yourself described with a few of these bias's(as I know that I have) then you can be sure there really is a problem. You can/will continue to disrespectfully disagree with me but maybe the link below can assist you in future endeavors. Best Regards,Mike

So, summing up. You have a theory which is not accepted by the scientific consensus. You are not going to publish this theory so that scientists can see the error of their way . Posters on here have asked you questions and pointed out flaws in your theory but you refuse to interact in any meaningful way. In fact 90% of your posts are just bluster. I suggest you read the link you just gave me yourself and try and understand how it applies to you. If you want to be taken seriously then start defending your theory and have the decency to answer the questions you have been asked.

1. I have more than a theory. I have actual observations, facts and empirical data of the atmosphere.It is based in part by observing the US Cornbelt over the past 30+ years. It is clear as the nose on your face and the clouds in the sky to all meteorologists that forecast in this region. http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/08/how_corn_may_be_helping_michig.html

2. As stated, I make a good living making weather observations and using them to project useful information. Even if I had a unique theory(this one is well known by meteorologists), I prefer to spend much of my free time doing things like coaching scholastic chess and running tournaments for young people vs publishing something on climate science in an environment that appears to be part of this Twilight Zone...........at least here, at this forum, my time investment is minimal.2. I have answered your questions. I think it's absurd to give my prediction for the year 2100......my exact point is that we have no skill in doing that. I am not going to have a silly debate about the possible circumstances of an event 96,000,000 which is supposed to somehow offset my point about the observations of the atmosphere in this era, when we can accurately measure it and compare those observations with model data.This again, takes the focus off my point......observations vs model data.With regarding to CO2 warming being logarithmic, I don't understand what is so hard to understand about an increase from 280ppm to 400ppm causing the same increase as 400 ppm to 800ppm. Are you not aware that logarithmic function curves by definition can greatly steepen their curves?http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logarithmic_functions.svg\But again, this only takes the focus away from observations and is an "educated" guess on CO2's role on my part.3. I have passed that link along to many people, most are good friends. In this case, it's more of a duty. I spent more time than you can imagine looking at each kind of bias and reflecting on it....more than a few times.

Since only a few minutes have gone by since you received it, you obviously have not.

I am not going to have a silly debate about the possible circumstances of an event 96,000,000 which is supposed to somehow offset my point about the observations of the atmosphere in this era

Paleoclimate behaviour provides considerable insight into the Earth's climate system. Unless the fundamentals of physics have changed during the Cenozoic, your argument fails.

If cloud feedbacks net negative and are strong enough to alter climate system behaviour, then the climate system would be insensitive to radiative perturbation. So how do we account for hyperthermals like the PETM, general paleoclimate and modern climate variability and deglaciation under orbital forcing?

It is extremely obvious to most discussants that the climate system's known behaviour (observed and paleoclimate) is entirely incompatible with the existence of strong negative feedbacks to radiative perturbation.

The reverse applies: it is self-evident that the climate system is moderately sensitive to radiative perturbation.

"With regarding to CO2 warming being logarithmic, I don't understand what is so hard to understand about an increase from 280ppm to 400ppm causing the same increase as 400 ppm to 800ppm. Are you not aware that logarithmic function curves by definition can greatly steepen their curves?"

Mike, this is easier to understand if you think of logarithms as a special form of math having to do with ratios.

Logarithmic dependence says the warming is the same for a rise from 200 ppm to 400 ppm as it is for 400 to 800 ppm, because they both work out to a ratio of 2. Likewise you'd get the same for a rise from 300 to 600 ppm, or 263 to 526 ppm, or whatever, as long as it's a ratio of 2. If you want to put it explicitly in terms of logarithms then ln (400/200) = ln (800/400) = ln (2).

But 280 to 400 ppm is a ratio of (400/280) = 1.43. Obviously ln(1.43) is not equal to ln(2).

This really is just math, and nothing to do with one's views on climate change.

OK, thanks Raymond, of course you are correct and my example was wrong, without elaboration....thanks.

Related to CO2 absorption of long wave radiation. There are several bands of absorption. If there was no saturation of CO2 in those bands from beginning to end and no absorption in one of those bands from H2O, then CO2 absorption would follow a logarithmic function.

In reality, there is likely some of both(I will not debate another theory) that causes CO2 to be less and less efficient of an absorber of LW radiation with increasing levels.

Whether it's 200ppm to 400ppm is the same as 400ppm to 800ppm or 280 to 560 is the same as 400 to 800 or what I think, 280 to 400 will have the same effect as 400 to 800(a guess as I have indicated) is once again, taking the focus off of observations and trying to use theories and models to forecast in place of observation.

The actual atmosphere and how it's acting, is what matters most.Reconciliation between the 2 should always be towards observations.

The growing disparity between model temp projections and current global temperatures should be setting off alarms bells in the heads of climate scientists.

How does one reconcile this difference?

For me, rather than theorizing that it's ALL coming from speculative natural and man made causes(some is for sure), I suspect it is from CO2 not being as efficient of an absorber as we "theorized" and especially, global climate models not using the right equations to understand H2O and clouds.

I don't have the best equations. I'm an operational meteorologist that specializes in observations.

When the disparity is growing between a theory/model and observations........there's only one thing to do to remain authentic.

If cloud feedbacks net negative, they should suppress climate variability. The climate system would be insensitive to radiative perturbation.

There could have been no hyperthermals and no glaciations and orbitally-triggered deglaciations. Variability (response to changing radiative forcing) would be suppressed. Nothing much could happen.

But these things and more *did* happen, which is very strong evidence that the climate system *is* moderately sensitive to radiative perturbation. For that to be the case, feedbacks must net positive.

Arguments about the recent rate of surface warming tell us nothing about climate sensitivity. They tell us that the rate of surface warming is modulated by the rate of ocean heat uptake. Transient variability in the rate of OHU cannot be argued as evidence that feedbacks net negative and S has been over-estimated.

I suggest you contact Jeff. My name is Mike Maguire. There were 4 of us that had this unique way of greeting each other every day before classes......for several years. Instead of Hi or How's it going, we would whistle the opening part of a tune from the Wizard of Oz "If I only had a heart"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aE-nMS9MnkWhy that song?Because it came from the movie with the famous tornado!

When severe weather threatened, there were 4 of us that would meet(we had keys to the building to go there after hours) and would go to the 2nd floor of the AOSS building with a huge picture window facing the southwest.........the perfect direction to see a funnel cloud or tornado.

We never saw any tornadoes back then but had lots of laughs.

I did get to fly into hurricane Gloria in September 1985 as a television meteorologist for WEHT TV in Evansville IN(always thought it was funny to send somebody from a place that far from the ocean) well before Jeff flew on hurricane hunters out of Coral Gables.

Jeff is way smarter than me and as you know, has the same opinion about this topic as this forum.

However, my position is based on observations and facts. dhogaza, since you have expressed doubt in me being in classes with Jeff Masters, I nominate you to contact him to verify my statement.

I'm looking forward to hearing back.

Just a reminder of my position, observations........ not theories, models, guesses or speculation is what should get the most weight in climate science.

With regarding to CO2 warming being logarithmic, I don't understand what is so hard to understand about an increase from 280ppm to 400ppm causing the same increase as 400 ppm to 800ppm. Are you not aware that logarithmic function curves by definition can greatly steepen their curves?

Your understanding of this topic is faulty, as demonstrated above (August 3 12:56AM). You were shown to be incorrect. Yet rather than concede the point, you reiterate it. This is unacceptable in rational discussion.

BBD, PL and others, I'm with Bill. I think any more would be classed as cruelty.

For all his supposed credentials, his bluff and bluster, Meteormike has said enough to demonstrate that he knows far less about climate than the average climate hawk. He doesn't even know as much as some of the more informed deniers at WUWT.

He doesn't understand climate models, how they work, their purpose, what they are designed for or how to interpret their output. Nor what climate modellers themselves say about them.

He doesn't understand logarithms or the basics of climate sensitivity.

Apart from the fact that CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases that warm the world, he doesn't know the first thing about the greenhouse effect and refuses to discuss details of what causes how much effect.

He thinks it's a badge of honour to be among the minority of meteorologists (weather forecasters, not scientific researchers) who are ignorant about climate science.

He bases his prognostications on fields of corn in the midwest in the USA and disregards the rest of the earth system.

He knows nothing about paleoclimate. He doesn't even know that there are observations that give insight into past climates and past climate change. He thinks we can't learn anything about the present from the past. (He should try telling that to the MWP aficionados and the Greenland ice sheeters at WUWT.)

He rejects climate science. Evidence suggests he's read very little on the subject. He does have strong opinions about it and despises the people who actively research it.

I suggest we leave it there. He's just another climate science denier. There is nothing to be gained from further engagement or letting him humiliate himself any more than he's already done.

Plus, he isn't adding anything. He just keeps repeating himself over and over.

to those who think it is useful to discuss with Mike Maguire, see:http://www.courierpress.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/global-warming-scam-masquerades-as-cry-to-savehttp://catholicexchange.com/warming-to-the-truth-on-climate-change

See also:http://grizzleo.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/in-his-community-comment-last-sunday-meteorologist-mike-maguire-joined-such-scientific-luminaries-as-rush-limbaugh-sean-hannity-and-u-s-sen-james-inhofe-r-okla-in-calling-global-warming-a/

Mike is just another one of those pseudoskeptics (see e.g. his claims on decreasing cloud heights) who claims others are ideologically biased, because he is so ideologically biased himself. Either he is not aware of the latter, or he is, but then believes the others must be even worse.

From LinkedIn"InterestsDeveloping the minds of our youth using the "sport for the brain"---Chess. Family. Human nutrition. Gardening. Atmospheric scientist with expertise in global warming/climate change(lack of it) and great benefits of CO2 to our planet."

"While there is evidence to support such an event,, the exact circumstances and conditions in the very distant are speculative(you could be right but its only a WILD guess)

Something from 56,000,000 years ago carries almost no weight for me in the atmosphere today..........compared to, actual observations of the atmosphere.

For all we know, assumptions based on what we think we know from the PETM are what is causing misconceptions and resulting in the confusion.

Observations!"

The PETM is against his religion.

I'm sorry, but the PETM is NOT speculative, but is based from carbon and oxygen isotopic analysis from sediment cores. ie. observations. The same oxygen isotopic analysis that gives us evidence of the temperature fluctuations during the ice age cycles that you seem to believe.

Mike is the clearest example I've seen of ideology trumping facts. The PETM shows that your ideological belief that CO2's effect is nearing saturation is completely wrong. That you can so easily hand wave it away, shows your own cognitive biases. That you accuse the entire climate science community and others of cognitive bias is a clear case of Freudian projection.

Here is a wikipedia page that you should read.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

You have said

"The truth is that CO2 is not pollution and that man did not cause much of the global warming that occurred in the last one hundred years. Don't believe the cleverly constructed presentations using distorted data from agenda driven groups. They consider their hidden interests to be more important than the truth. They often use well intentioned credible people to help perpetrate the scam. Don't believe them."http://dakotabeacon.com/entry/mike_mcguire_co2_is_not_pollution_-_sun_controls_climate/

You should actually listen to your own advice.

I like this line."Don't believe the cleverly constructed presentations using distorted data from agenda driven groups. They consider their hidden interests to be more important than the truth."

Yet you go running to Watts who is funded by Heartland, a well known fossil fuel and tobacco PR front.

Yet the REAL evidence is that over the last 60 years, man has caused ALL the warming.

You claim"Of the 1 C of warming the past 150 years, we can guess that maybe half of that was from "greenhouse gas" warming or .5 C."

WRONG.

Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31 ◦ C (0.85–1.76 ◦ C) to the increase, that is 159% (106–212%) of the total warming.

Well Mike, how about you show us some of this 'cleverly constructed presentations using distorted data from agenda driven groups'

We would love to see this 'evidence' that is so powerful, that it now requires the physics and chemistry books to be rewritten. This evidence that enables you to simply hand wave away satellite data, temperature observations and the laws of thermodynamics.

Those of us who've been following this debate for a decade or so know how this will resolve.

All those who joyously asserted that the next El Nino would puncture the hiatus will go to ground. Those scientists who asserted that their models virtually proved that there'd be an El Nino in 2014 and that it'd probably be a doozie will go to ground.

The skeptic community will have a field-day regurgitating all the quotes and predictions which are now shown to be bunkum.

Then we'll see the brethren fight back. A paper will be rushed into Nature or some other complaint magazine which proves (yes PROVES without a doubt) that the models were in fact absolutely right about El Nino and if you look at certain models in just the right light from just the right angle you see that they were spot on, Then RC or SkS will have a paper showing that most (well pretty much all !) scientists were dismissive of a 2014 El Nino event and those evil skeptics are just cherry-picking a few quotes completely out of context when they say that many true believers were banking on an El Nino to save the faith.

And that'll be it. The brethren will convince themselves that the models hadn't screwed up and that the priesthood remain infallible and they'll move onto the next prediction that will see the end of this hiatus (which doesn't even exist anyway).

All those who joyously asserted that the next El Nino would puncture the hiatus will go to ground

What a dumb thing to say. Even without an El Nino we are getting record high monthly global surface temps. The next El Nino is very likely to also result in record high surface temps. That's what it does. There's a 50% chance El Nino will emerge in a few months. If not, there will be another sooner or later.

Also, re your comments about models - the model runs used to predict ENSO events aren't the same as those used for long term climate projections. From what you write I'd say you don't know much about ENSO, weather or climate, or weather and climate models, or medium term weather forecasts. You've already indicated you are a climate science denier so it's no surprise you know little about weather too.

All those who blithely assume that only an El Nino could prise the hiatus from their cold dead hands are going to get a nasty surprise. Those of who are actually watching what's going on know the "hiatus" has long gone and July's figures won't bring it back.

Here's a prediction. Several people will win Lotto this Saturday night. And yet, by Denier logic, I cannot possibly know this, as I have absolutely no idea who, and could never hope to. Climate / weather.

Yes, given that climate's been changing for a few billion years now its a pretty safe bet it'll change again. But its the direction, magnitude and causes that's the tough bit. Still. if you keep predicting it'll change in one direction the law of averages says you'll be right eventually.

Bill - I wasn't predicting the climate, I was predicting how the brethren would react to yet another or their hoped for slam dunks failing. And Sou was kind enough to confirm my prediction almost instantaneously.

I'm afraid you missed the logic of the discussion. But I've noticed over the years that many true believers struggle with such things. I guess that's why they elect to avoid the pesky thinking and just agree to believe whatever the priesthood tells them to believe.

"Still. if you keep predicting it'll change in one direction the law of averages says you'll be right eventually."

The law of averages couldn't account for the fact that the earth is getting warmer, every decade warmer than the previous one, without any obvious forcing except for the greenhouse effect.

"I guess that's why they elect to avoid the pesky thinking and just agree to believe whatever the priesthood tells them to believe."

What kind of idiotic thinking resorts to calling something a religion that's supported by 97% of climate scientists and every science institution in the world? Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. On the other side of the argument you have false petitions and "force x" and all the made up stuff at Watts. Which side of this discussion is really more like a religion?JG

Nup...banned for making the egregious error of pointing out errors on the site:1. It was claimed that 300 Billion people die each year from industrial pollution. I pointed out that 'only' 60 Billion die world wide from all causes. Accused of eugenics (!!!).2. Pointed out that two posts, one month apart, made diametrically opposite claims. One said Abbott would disappoint those silly deniers by never repealing the plant food tax while the other urged the overthrown of Gillard to stop Abbott winning the election and repealing the plant food tax. Mike M, who never made an error he didn't try to cover up, deleted all posts pointing out the 'error' and banned me to ensure I couldn't continue to draw attention to it.

"It was claimed that 300 Billion people die each year from industrial pollution. I pointed out that 'only' 60 Billion die world wide from all causes. Accused of eugenics (!!!)."

WTF? If you're more than 12 years old you're so dense you're lucky that breathing is essentially involuntary. Either way, what the hell are you doing sticking your innumerate nose into any grown up debates?

Ironically, perhaps, I agree with numerobis. It was harsh, but, as I said above, with this particular type of 'gloat' troll all bets are off. Making such a dumb mistake when crowing about someone else's error is, of course, more than a bit ironic.

If he'd managed to pause a moment in his insouciance he might even have had an opportunity to accuse me of pedantry. But, no. Not even quoting his own material originally and a subsequent reference to 'proofreading skills' - or implied lack thereof - would help.

I'll leave it to the reader to determine whether he just never bothered to check his own material, or is simply incapable of admitting even a trivial error, even one that might be turned back on an accuser.

Bear in mind, such people as these are permanently altering ALL our futures. I, for one, am not inclined to grant them much in the way of a benefit of the doubt...

Why bother? It would only further show how a seemingly well educated and smart person can be indoctrinated by propaganda and deceptive misinformation from vested interests like the fossil fuel industry. (You have dutifully repeated their misinformation here, and have even emailed one of their helots.) You have clearly shown with your post history here that you have totally and absolutely swallowed their line, and nothing with shift you from your alternate reality.

I'm still very interested in what you have dubbed 'cleverly constructed presentations using distorted data from agenda driven groups'. Can you provide a link to one of these presentations with a short explanation of why and how the data is distorted.

Dave, I don't see much evidence that Mike has been indoctrinated by propaganda and deceptive misinformation. At one point in time people like Mike will have to admit they have deceived *themselves*. It is too easy to put the blame on others, especially if the person in question should have the background to put that propaganda and misinformation in its proper context. I do realise that having the proper background and having the ability are two separate entities.

Meteormike - does it register in your conscious mind that your statements/accusations necessitate a worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists encompassing tens of thousands of researchers across virtually every country on Earth and spanning several generations?

That such a conspiracy could exist is farcical on its face.

Now, how should we treat someone that *does* believe it exists? Are they ignorant? Stupid? Insane?

Faking the moon landings would be child's play next to running an AGW hoax.

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

New Look

G'day. HotWhopper is having a facelift. Do let me know if you find anything missing or broken.

When you read older articles on a desktop or notebook, you may find the sidebar moves down the page, instead of being on the side. That can happen with some older articles if your browser is not the full width of your computer screen. I am not planning to check every previous post, so if you come across something particularly annoying, send me an email and I'll fix it. Or you can add your thoughts to this feedback article.

You can use the menu up top to get to the blogroll or whatever it is you might be looking for on the sidebar.

When moderation shows as ON, there may be a short or occasionally longer delay before comments appear. When moderation is OFF, comments will appear as soon as they are posted.

All you need to know about WUWT

WUWT insider Willis Eschenbach tells you all you need to know about Anthony Watts and his blog, WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). As part of his scathing commentary, Wondering Willis accuses Anthony Watts of being clueless about the blog articles he posts. To paraphrase:

Even if Anthony had a year to analyze and dissect each piece...(he couldn't tell if it would)... stand the harsh light of public exposure.

Definition of Denier (Oxford): A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.
‘a prominent denier of global warming’
‘a climate change denier’

Alternative definition: A former French coin, equal to one twelfth of a Sou, which was withdrawn in the 19th century. Oxford. (The denier has since resurfaced with reduced value.)